Post your thoughts/ideas/musings on global poverty and climate change for Policywonk - Mumsnet's blogger at the G20 summit...

[JustineMumsnet]

Ok so hurrah, Policywonk is to be our Mumsnet representative inside the London Summit as part of G20Voice initiative - a group of 50 bloggers connecting the rest of the world with the G20 world leaders.

There is more information about the project at here but in short G20Voice has been organised by a coalition of non-profit organisations Oxfam GB, Comic Relief, and Save the Children with the support of the Blue State Digital and the UK Government. They have convinced the UK Govt to allow 50 bloggers into the summit with equal access to the mainstream media.

It's a 3 day programme starting April 1st the day before the summit and ending the day after. Day one will be about providing the bloggers with information and helping them get to know each other so that they can understand the issues they and their readers care about. It will be fairly unstructured along Barcamp/Unconference lines. We want the bloggers to decide the priorities and the questions they ask the next day.

The day of the summit will consist of a stream of people from the G20 delegations. They'll be asked to speak with the bloggers either en-masse or at round table discussions. People outside the summit can join in via Skype or phone lines.

The analysis day is about feedback from the bloggers and experts from Govt and NGOs on the decisions and announcements from the Summit.

All three days will be filmed and a video and audio stream will be available.

The main themes are global poverty and climate change/the environment but as they say on the website: 'This is the plan but in reality the event belongs to the bloggers. Everyone attending will have the chance to shape the schedule themselves.'

So anyway, that's the background and here's the thread for discussing your thoughts on global poverty and climate change in particular.

[OhBling]

Oh, and on Zimbabwe, I'd like to know why they all think it's Africa's problem - no one thought Iraq was the broader ME's problem! I'm tired of SA being blamed for Zimbabwe and would like to know what the rest of the world is planning to do or really think.

[on a lighter note, can you ask some questions about what the male partners of female delegates will be doing during the summit? I am always fascinated as the lady partners of the men always seem to be off looking at houses or whatever but what happens to the husbands?]

[Oliveoil]

I have just returned from a BBQ at my neighbours house in sunny Oz.

He has built himself a woodfired pizza oven and I have partaken (if that is a word) of several bluecheese, garlic mushroom and rocket pizzas

How many dolphins/climate change doodars/ozone layers have I put at risk?

tia

[Rhubarb]

Policywonk, on the issue of China, here are some links for you to look at.

Good Rock

British Medical Journal

BBC In this one, dated Sept 2007, the Chinese government have rejected calls for them to relax the one-child policy and have even declared it a success!

[Rhubarb]

Oh and on the subject of Zimbabwe, could you ask what they are doing to help Aid agencies struggling to deliver aid to these countries.

And now that some of the banks are state-owned, will they stop them financing Mugabe's regime, like Barclays were doing?

[OhBling]

Rhubarb - I have just purchased "Dead Aid" by Dambisa Moyo. Apparently a very interesting take on the ineffectiveness of traditional aid to Africa. I am planning to make a start on it this weekend. You might also find it interesting.

[Rhubarb]

Cheers, will give it a go!

[Monkeytrousers1]

Um, I didn't say conspiracy! I don't think there is a conspiracy, just a possible ineptness. Though people do mistrust Rupert Murdoch, but strangely not the media he controls...odd. But I digress!

I just mean people are not being given equal opportunity to examine other hypotheses in the media - the fact you think my post eccentric (deviating from the norm?) might simply demonstrate this, I dunno. Its my expereince that people don;t know why many countried were not supporters of the Kyoto protocol, and were given the impression in the press that objections were from the nutty David Belamy brigade only - this isn't an accurate representation at all. Because if this, we are affectily disemopowered from making informed choices. I'm not promoting any freaky conspiracy just highlighting a discrepancy with the flow of information and yes, maybe saying, it isn;t impartial all of the time. It shouldn't be a suprise that this happens when so much money is involved - it would be very unusual for corrunption not to be attempted somewhere. I wopuld just like to see some skeptical (read, not cynical, do not preempt the answers) questions asked. So much is at stake here especially for people living in flood zones that they need more practical help than Kyoto would offer. Kyoto more and moire seems like an abstract discouyrse to salve werstern guilty conscioulsnesses - but again, I dunno. I'm just asking questions about the information that we are being fed.

The Al Gore scenario is interesting indeed. I will dig ourt some stuff for you to read if you want. You don;t have to agree with it, but it will serve you and us better if yoiu know both sides of the debate??

[Monkeytrousers1]

Re animal dung - (sorry, but just playing devils advocate again) - what are women supposed to use other than dung, which is a freely available and recyclable resourse for them? Why do women in developing copuntries who have hard lives already have to worry about air pollution? Yes, I know it might not be great for their immediate environments, but if it's a question of trade offs (which everything is) providing your family with food and warmth from sustainable local resources must be the priority. mustn't it? Humans have been burning dung for energy for millenia. If we are worried about the respiratoiry health of developing countries, shouldn't we be targeting British and American Tobacco rather than women simply tyring to survive?

MT - animal dung is a common fuel for indoor cooking fires in developing countries and its effects on air quality are particularly awful (edited an article about it once and it's stuck in my head ever since).

[policywonk]

Thank you for that link thready. I like your last paragraph a lot.

Thanks also for that advice OhBling - I'll try it tomorrow.

Re. Zimbabwe - I see the point you're making. What's the alternative though - sending in UN troops to force Mugabe out?

[policywonk]

Yes, good point about the husbands

I must say I think Dambisa Moyo's argument is extremely strange (but I've only read a potted version of it). I'm sure it will come up at the discussions.

[policywonk]

Thanks for those links Rhubarb, will have a look later.

Good question about the banks and Zimbabwe - does anyone know the extent of international banks' involvement in the regime?

[policywonk]

MT, sorry for misinterpreting the conspiracy aspect. Can you give a precis of the Lomberg arguments? I'm pushed for time and I'm not going to be able to read whole books.

Re. the dung - it's not about penalising the women for using it (as you say, it's a perfectly sensible and sustainable resource) - it's about the fact that it tends to have disastrous consequences for the respiratory health of the women and children in the home. So the idea is (I guess - haven't looked at Habb's link yet) to provide alternative fuel sources, or alternative cooking areas, that won't have such terrible health effects.

[policywonk]

Thank you avi and good question about the apology!

[OhBling]

Well, I'm not anti troops in Zim

But more seriously, on a personal level, I'm interested in why they see Zim as Africa's problem vs Iraq being a global problem. I concede that possibly I am losing sight of the bigger picture but it makes no sense to me and I feel if I could understand that I might better understand the decision making process re International Relations.

I haven't read Dambisa's book yet but I assume the point is that Aid doesn't really get to where it needs to nor does it address the fundemental issue that led to the need for aid in the first place. It's all very well to provide medical care today, but what are you doing about improving understanding of health overall? Or I guess - give someone a fish and you feed them for a day but give them a net and you feed them for life? I would be interested if it came up but I am not sure it would right now?

And thanks on the husbands!

[Monkeytrousers1]

PW, here is the sleeve notes on Lomborg's most recent book 'Cool It', which gives a better precis than I could give;

"Bjorn Lomborg argues than many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered t stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years.

"Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, (he) argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply - which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the dabate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent."

He has written his own precis in Comment os Free, herewww.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/carbonemissions.climatechange

It really is worth looking at the sensible counter arguments in this as so much is at stake. As well as Cool It www.amazon.co.uk/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0462099121/ref=pd_sim_b_5?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21 there is also an interesing little book called ( Billion to make the world a better place

As far as Al Gore is concerned, he is fast becoming known as a charlaton who is simply jumping on the best band wagon to keep his profile (and earnings up). As a lefty liberal, I was as shocked as anyone to discover this.

[Monkeytrousers1]

God (tho obvioulsy I am skeptcal (not cynical) about god, I hope I haven't killed a sticky thread!

[GLaDOS]

Where is everyone? Are you all reading Bjorn Lomborg?

[policywonk]

I think I might have bludgeoned the thread into submission by my schoolmarmishness

Thanks for those links MT, I will have a read.

I think I might try to get some of the anti-capitalist protestors to put forward their POV on the blog. These are the questions I thought I might ask - anyone have any comments or suggestions?

** Can you envisage any circumstances in which some good would come of the G20 summit?

** What is your opinion of organisations, like Oxfam and Greenpeace, which proceed on the assumption that lobbying delegates at such summits might have some purpose?

** What do you hope to achieve with the protests you have organised around the summit?

** Some people are saying that the anti-capitalist protest movement is making a comeback after several years in which its activities were largely unreported. Have you noticed an increase in the number of people becoming active in the movement over the last year or so?

** Do organisations like Schnews have a codified belief system or set of objectives to which its activists subscribe, or does each activist have his/her own set of beliefs and objectives? Are there any aims around which most activists coalesce? Would it be correct to characterise the anti-globalisation movement, broadly speaking, as anarchist ? or are you creating a new political philosophy?

** If the aim of your movement is, essentially, the overthrow of capitalism, do you accept that the achievement of this aim would result in short-to-medium term chaos in the G20 countries (accepting that chaos, impoverishment and starvation are already the order of the day in the majority world)? Do you believe that such a correction is both necessary and inevitable? And if so, can you envisage any circumstances in which the populations of the G20 countries could be persuaded to sign up to the anti-capitalist programme voluntarily?

[GLaDOS]

Oh, that last one sounds like the 'you have to break eggs to make an omelette' argument. Which basically translates to 'people will have to die if our cause is to succeed' - the tyrants charter!

[policywonk]

Yes, I think some of them do think like that. OTOH, you could say that people are dying all over the world at the moment because of the way the current system 'works' (or doesn't work)... and runaway climate change, if it's allowed to continue, will kill millions more.

Anyway I'm interested to see what they'll say, if they respond at all.

[Bramshott]

One thing I was mulling over last night was the question of why / how it is that now that the war in Afghanistan is going badly, suddenly all the talk is of 'dialogue' with the Taliban, despite their appalling record on womens rights and the closing down of girls schools etc. I mean, either they are an evil regime deserving of regime change, or they're not, surely, they can't be one thing in 2001, and a totally different one today (given that their beliefs and ethos have not changed at all).

Policy - that's not a question for you to 'answer' (!), more a general musing for the thread!

[GLaDOS]

Hmm. Actually this is one of the main issues - over stating the nagative effects. Climate change will also save many lifes from cold deaths. It's in all the Lomborg stuff.

And it's very a different thing to introduce measures, like the welfare state, and analysie pros and cons, and what is working and not working, than indtocucing 'revolutionary' chganges that are from the off, guarenteed to bring huge loses. That's why marxism, communism, etc always brought totalitariansm whereever they were implicated. Ideologies should never go before people.

[policywonk]

is that you, MT?

Good point, Bramshott.